Why Apple's move to an ARM Mac is going to be a bumpy road for some

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 162
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    tronald said:
    Watching Steve Jobs give a presentation was such a refreshing blast from the past versus Tim Cook. Such a great mix of straightforward, informative, and just slightly comical. 
    Maybe ask why Cook hasn’t such a great mind as Einstein?
  • Reply 82 of 162
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    cropr said:
    Apparently nobody is looking at other use cases that will be jeopardized if Macs move away from Intel.   I am using my MBP for cloud development, meaning that I typically run locally a small Kubernetes cluster to develop applications that once tested will be deployed on a Kubernetes cluster in the cloiud .  Because all cloud platform are based on Docker containers which are basically Linux X86 images, Imight face serious issue.

    I have no clue if or when docker containers can run on a ARM based Mac but I am sure that if Docker containers could run on Arm based Macs,  the performance impact will be considerable, making a Mac no longer a competitive machine compared to an Ubuntu based Dell XPS
    Server hardware will be replaced by ARM in its entirety, simply because of cost performance ratio. Thus solving your problem.  
  • Reply 83 of 162
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    If I were Apple, I would make a x86 instructions compatible processor with ARM core.  Modern Intel processors used the same technique with RISC-like core and x86 microcode.  This way, no transition issues, if not 100% compatible with existing software.
    Why use an ancient not well design instruction set with way to little registers (to name one biggie).
    It is (fundamentally) impossible to transfer the performance and expression power of the ARM 64 bit instruction set to x86.
    Its like pushing high speed 6 lane traffic on a smal curvy mountain road, going up.
    Intel should have exposed its internal RISC processor so people could program for it and let for example at least run the OS on it and use hardware x86 translation for backwards compatibility.
    But hé, the time for this very good idea, that might have worked, has past.

  • Reply 84 of 162
    I assume everybody knows, the ARM Mac will just be Apples version of the Surface Pro. I would assume it’ll run iPad apps and be sold as a ultra lightweight computer
  • Reply 85 of 162
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    I assume everybody knows, the ARM Mac will just be Apples version of the Surface Pro. I would assume it’ll run iPad apps and be sold as a ultra lightweight computer
    1) That doesn't seem likely at all. So you think it'll be an iPad running macOS but running iPad apps, not Mac apps? Where's the logic in that.

    2) While it gets better every month, there are still too many of you that are still unable to wrap your heads around this architecture change despite Apple having done several times before.
  • Reply 86 of 162
    samrodsamrod Posts: 60unconfirmed, member
    bsimpsen said:
    Apple does not have a license to use the x86 instruction set. They'd need one to do as you suggest.
    Not quite. Apple can reproduce the x86 instructions because it's not protected by IP. It's Intel's microcode that's protected and cross-licensed with AMD.
  • Reply 87 of 162
    samrodsamrod Posts: 60unconfirmed, member
    If Apple's really considering a move to ARM, it must consider Intel's hurdles. Intel, along with AMD, aren't lagging because they're inept or lazy, but because they're legitimately dealing with the laws of physics that Apple just hasn't had to deal with because it's on an entirely different architecture. ARM will face these same technological hurdles at some point. Apple must be aware that it can't continuing shrinking the fab process indefinitely beyond the announced 3nm this year and 2nm in 2024. What's next, picometers? I personally hope Apple figures out how to include the x86 instruction set within the ARM architecture.
    headfull0winedysamoria
  • Reply 88 of 162
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    wizard69 said:
    After reading through all the comments here I really don’t think people grasp the poor state of affairs in Mac land.  I left the Mac world 2 years ago now for a variety of reasons from port support, over priced hardware and hardware designed to meet nobodies need.  ARM is actually an opportunity for Apple to win me back as a customer. 

    Why?   
    1.   They could use it as an excuse to get reasonable about pricing of hardware.  Apples products in the Mac department have become the biggest ripoffs I’ve ever seen.   So maybe ARM will be the excuse to stop selling RAM and SSD’s at 5x their value.  
    2.  Maybe - just maybe they will put enough ports on the laptops to make them useful.   And better yet all laptops get power through a standard port (USB-PD).    I don’t want to have to buy a special power pack ever again, the same for supplemental power banks this can be applied to the Mini too.  
    3. The desire to own an ARM based laptop is huge, this simply to have something that can run for ages (at least two days) under intermittent load.  But it is t just run time it would be nice to have a legitimate possibility of recharging or running from a solar panel.  This would be in the 10 watt panel range.  Something you can get real power from yet is transportable.   
    Your reasons to want this are sound.
    I currently run a creditcard (really!) size 64 bit quad core 1.5GHz ARM soc as a server (3d printed its mini passive cooled casing) and it is using almost no power. I run a Ubuntu linux distribution on it and this is absolutely ok.
    But I do mis macOS as a desktop (Unix side is bash and is very good), I think Apple is very very good in this respect.
    Power over USB is a nice feature but has a disadvantage, because it is mounted directly on the motherboard and can damage it with too much power running over it.
    It depends on the motherboard of course, and I expect Apple to do good in this respect, but it is something to consider. 
  • Reply 89 of 162
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    ElCapitan said:
    There is large number of open-source libraries in use, and both closed source and open source applications built on these running on macOS where it is highly unlikely they will ever be ported to ARM. Many of these run on the current macOS by a shoe-string only by feature of running on Intel, as the port is relative untrivial compared to a port to ARM.
    Why wouldn't they port to ARM? Why not recompile them?

    What exact Open Source libraries would you suggest couldn't be ported with a compile switch.
  • Reply 90 of 162
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Soli said:
    I assume everybody knows, the ARM Mac will just be Apples version of the Surface Pro. I would assume it’ll run iPad apps and be sold as a ultra lightweight computer
    2) While it gets better every month, there are still too many of you that are still unable to wrap your heads around this architecture change despite Apple having done several times before.
    People are totally confusing the change at the chip level with the a change at the OS level. 
  • Reply 91 of 162
    I am still using a dual G5 as my primary machine. It has served me very well. The folks at Tenfourfox have done a simply outstanding job of keeping the machine relevant.

    Yes, it is an energy hog. But it does the job and even on an OS as old as 10.5.8, it still offers better security than any Intel based Mac. I don't care how secure the software is if the hardware itself is flawed.

    I do have one Intel based Mac mini firewalled behind the G5. Apple remote desktop software and the ability to share the screens of the individual computers has been life saver.

    The point is that for those that want to stay on Intel, well, just stay on what you are using. It's not like Intel is going to be able to increase the performance of their chips much from here on, so those mac minis, mac pros and imac pros should stay relevant for a lot longer than my G5 did.

    Apple absolutely needs to move off of the Intel platform. TSMC has Intel beaten and beaten badly. Apple's ARM cores are performing far better than Intel's x86 based ones. I don't care if Intel is running a RISC like core in their chips. They aren't in the same class as Apple's own CPUs. It isn't even close. And Intel's integrated GPUs are pathetic. AMD is killing Intel with respect to the CPU and GPU.

    If x86 is still going to maintain dominance on the desktop (including portable desktops, aka laptops), then why is Microsoft so insistent on building a viable ARM platform for their flagship OS? Because even Microsoft sees the world moving away from the x86 platform. The ARM platform is the dominant computing platform. And it is still rapidly moving forward while x86 lags. And with each passing year, the lag grows ever wider.

    I use my G5 as my primary computer. The Intel based Mac mini handled the multi media tasks because the G5 choked on high def video. But I discovered a very nice device called the Raspberry pi. Running a Linux based OS called raspbian.

    I can say this, I prefer using the Raspberry pi over the Mac mini.

    The performance is every bit as good as the mini. There is no fan noise and it uses scant power compared the mini. The power supply delivers 15 watts total.

    Intel wasn't even able to deliver a decent CPU for a computing watch. Their processors overheated. Not that the same issues didn't plague ARM designs produced by Qualcomm. However, Qualcomm did recover, but Intel doesn't make any CPUs for phones, tablets or watches. And no, the Microsoft surface line of machines don't count as tablets. They are laptops with design elements taken from tablets.

    Apple left the powerpc and never looked back. Just as they did with the 68k line of CPUs. Few will remember, but the PPC ran legacy 68k code for a long time. It wasn't until Mac OS 8.5 that Apple went fully to PowerPC code. Rosetta was a much shorter period of transition over to Intel.

    The fact is that Apple has a great deal of experience in building capable high performance emulators/translators.

    Moving to ARM from Intel is just another step. And it will happen. If Jobs were still alive, I believe the transition would already have happened. He berated Motorola for their inability to deliver. He left IBM and he would have had no hesitation in leaving Intel.

    It was always Wintel that was hamstrung by backwards compatibility. In the Apple world, change was the norm. SCSI was abandoned for IDE and then for SATA. ADB was abandoned for USB. FireWire was abandoned for thunderbolt. NuBus was abandoned for PCI. Even the display ports for the video monitors were always changing back in the day. I had to go out and purchase an ADC to DVI adapter just to keep the same monitor when I upgraded the GPU in the dual G5 machine.

    Apple now has many in its sphere that have come over from the world of Windows. And they are clamoring to hold back the platform again for backwards compatibility.

    Well, that's not the way Apple works. Either adapt or be left behind.

    For those that refuse to adapt, well, Microsoft will still be producing an x86 version of Windows until Intel and AMD go out of business.
  • Reply 92 of 162
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Just out of interest, are there any other viable architectures out there for consumer electronics, or is it all about an ascendant ARM and a declining x86/x64?  I'm guessing PowerPC and SPARC and are pretty much dead now?  Are there any up and comers, maybe in the quantum computing, or similarly experimental areas that might be potential rivals?  A single architecture future doesn't sound like the most healthy situation.
  • Reply 93 of 162
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    crowley said:
    Just out of interest, are there any other viable architectures out there for consumer electronics, or is it all about an ascendant ARM and a declining x86/x64?  I'm guessing PowerPC and SPARC and are pretty much dead now?  Are there any up and comers, maybe in the quantum computing, or similarly experimental areas that might be potential rivals?  A single architecture future doesn't sound like the most healthy situation.
    If ARM craters because of shenanigans between ARMH's British and Chinese investors, MIPS could be an option. RISC-V is an open source option, but the issue with this is that it hasn't been successful enough to be tested in court. Any new ISA that is successful and earning money will be sued in court, and companies tend to shy away from situations like that. It might gain traction in China, and if so, I could see it gaining. Market is big enough for it. Whether it will breakout in countries where an OEM can be sued will by the interesting part.
    GG1
  • Reply 94 of 162
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,299member
    crowley said:
    Just out of interest, are there any other viable architectures out there for consumer electronics, or is it all about an ascendant ARM and a declining x86/x64?  I'm guessing PowerPC and SPARC and are pretty much dead now?  Are there any up and comers, maybe in the quantum computing, or similarly experimental areas that might be potential rivals?  A single architecture future doesn't sound like the most healthy situation.

     Apple acquired a PowerPC design and license when they set up the processor team. So who knows what's been cooking up behind the scenes.




  • Reply 95 of 162
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    @mattinoz @tht ;Very interesting, thanks both.
  • Reply 96 of 162
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,299member
    crowley said:
    @mattinoz @tht ;Very interesting, thanks both.
    Forgive my ignorance if this is a crazy idea for an obvious my googling so far hasn't turned up but...

    What about a Field Programmable Array was the co-processor in Future Macs?

    For some reason when Craig was talking about the afterburner in the WWDC19 - Talk show and said "turns out they are useful for lots of things" it stuck in my mind that we would them turn up other interesting places.

    What a mac needs to handle professional software is either one really high-performance thread to throw at the task or at the other end lots of smaller specialized threads then wouldn't an FPGA give them that. Say compared to now where they just balance between more cores or more boost in one core and they are left picking a middle ground.

    FPGA could be configured to suit the app in question. Apple and Developers could work with both the compiler chain to better gear the configuration profile for there App. 

    ARM SoC does the general-purpose computing then hands off to FPGA heavy-duty tasks that are started. 
  • Reply 97 of 162
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    The concern with running Windows is very, very real.
    When I bought my grandson a MacBook Air for Christmas (because he asked for one) I made sure that it could run Windows if needed (I knew I would have to get a larger SSD, so I made sure to get a new 2017 MBA where it wasn't soldered in and could be upgraded).

    And, sure enough, after a month or two he stopped using it because he couldn't deal with MacOS -- it had too many differences from the Chrome and Windows that he knew and understood and just got frustrated with the Mac.

    So, I got a 500Gb Apple SSD, installed it along with a product key for Windows 10 and got them installed just in time for the schools to close and shift to cyber school.

    Both he and his mom are very grateful that he doesn't have to fight with MacOS and can just do his school work.
  • Reply 98 of 162
    XedXed Posts: 2,519member
    The concern with running Windows is very, very real.
    When I bought my grandson a MacBook Air for Christmas (because he asked for one) I made sure that it could run Windows if needed (I knew I would have to get a larger SSD, so I made sure to get a new 2017 MBA where it wasn't soldered in and could be upgraded).

    And, sure enough, after a month or two he stopped using it because he couldn't deal with MacOS -- it had too many differences from the Chrome and Windows that he knew and understood and just got frustrated with the Mac.

    So, I got a 500Gb Apple SSD, installed it along with a product key for Windows 10 and got them installed just in time for the schools to close and shift to cyber school.

    Both he and his mom are very grateful that he doesn't have to fight with MacOS and can just do his school work.
    That isn't the norm. Pretty much everyone using Macs are using macOS. Only on tech sites will you find a vocal minority, but still clearly a minority, that need to use Windows as a dual boot or VM.

    But none of this matters for those that do need or want to run Windows, because like your purchase to get an older Mac that has a removable SSD, people will simple buy the Mac HW that suits their needs. Pro Macs will surely be Intel for many years to come.

    Even if and when Apple no longer is making new Intel Macs you will still be able to buy older Macs, just like you did, to get the HW options you wanted… but I bet buy the time this comes to pass it won't even be an issue for the all but a handful of pertinacious people on this forum.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 99 of 162
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    The ARM Mac will be a hybrid iPad Pro with a build-in keyboard.
    Normally I agree with you but I don't on this.  Apple has been very clear in its desire to keep iPadOS and macOS separate.  We'll see of course, but my money is on a 100% macOS experience on an ARM based Mac not any sort of hybrid experience.  My guess would be the MBA and MB and iMac in 2021 and all the Pro machines Intel or even both ARM and Intel for a few years.  The Pro machines wouldn't even notice the additional cost of both, a cost reduction in what Apple charge for RAM and SSDs could easily absorb it.  I'd suppose the choice of CPU would be a choice at boot or perhaps they could co-exist, not my area of knowledge.
  • Reply 100 of 162
    XedXed Posts: 2,519member
    MacPro said:
    The ARM Mac will be a hybrid iPad Pro with a build-in keyboard.
    Normally I agree with you but I don't on this.  Apple has been very clear in its desire to keep iPadOS and macOS separate.  We'll see of course, but my money is on a 100% macOS experience on an ARM based Mac not any sort of hybrid experience.  My guess would be the MBA and MB and iMac in 2021 and all the Pro machines Intel or even both ARM and Intel for a few years.  The Pro machines wouldn't even notice the additional cost of both, a cost reduction in what Apple charge for RAM and SSDs could easily absorb it.  I'd suppose the choice of CPU would be a choice at boot or perhaps they could co-exist, not my area of knowledge.
    The comments that think an ARM Mac will have to run iOS or iPadOS make no sense. Besides Apple being very clear, even if they haven't said anything to that point, the notion of running a mobile OS designed for a finger as the primary input is the complete opposite of what a Mac notebook and desktop are used. Why do some people believe that the UI of the OS has to follow the architecture when Apple, of all companies, has done this transition many times.
Sign In or Register to comment.